From: jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. De Armond)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Energy diversity (Re: Conservation vs. Nuclear)
Message-ID: <1615@rsiatl.UUCP>
Date: 30 Mar 90 03:51:08 GMT

nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes:

>In article <40024@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager) writes:

>   Without quibbling over numbers, may I submit that the issue should
>   be Conservation AND Nuclear.

>No.  We should spend marginal dollars in the most effective way we can.
>If the numbers point conservation, do it.  If the numbers point gas turbines,
>do it.  If the numbers point nuclear, do it.

This logic, while appealing on the surface, is fatally flawed. (Shades
of  t.p.g?) Paul is correct -as far as he goes.  For maximum reliability
at reasonable cost, it is critical to maintain a diversity of energy sources.
Putting one's eggs all in one basket, so to speak, is a sure recipie for
disaster. We all can, of course, cite the arab oil fiascos of the '70s
as examples.

Even though I am an extremely strong advocate of nuclear power, I could
not endorse a wholesale conversion to nuclear, especially under the
"standard plant" concept being promoted currently.  The reason why is simple.
Such a system is exposed not only to cartel-style commercial extortion from
suppliers but is also exposed to systemic flaws and failure modes.  We
saw an attempt of the former in the late '70s with the prosecution of the
Uranium Cartel by the federal government.  An example of the latter was
the water chemistry-induced stress corrosion the nuclear industry faced
a few years ago.  Though the stress corrosion problem turned out not
to be crippling, some other systemic flaw could cause a more or less
simultaneous shutdown of all stations using a given technology.  As the
financial pressure increases to go with "standard plant" or type-accepted
plant designs, we increase our risk in this area.

While I agree that the risk in this area is low, one must consider such
events when making decisions that affect us 20 to 50 years down the road.
And in case you wonder, this is old news to utility capacity planners.

In short, a diversity of proven generating capacity is the proper approach.
When all is said and done, the utilities do a pretty good job of getting
us power at reasonable rates.  The problems they've had, for the most
part (but of course, not always), have resulted from events no one could
have predicted.  Who, for example, could have predicted back in the 60's
the rise of the antinuclear nazis and the financial havoc they'd wreck?

While discussions in this forum are constructive, problems arise when
the uninformed become advocates for "simple" solutions.  Arbitrary moves to
a single "good" technology is no more rational than banning "bad"
technologies.  As I've advised before, we have to rely on the experts in
these areas.  And while one can always come up with a horror story in
order to justify meddling, one cannot deny the success of the utility
power system.

John


As

From: jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. De Armond)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: HTGR (was Re: Safeguards, Blah, Blah..)
Message-ID: <2318@rsiatl.UUCP>
Date: 18 May 90 00:45:26 GMT

hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager) writes:


>I also seem to recall that
>the the German Pebble-Bed HTGR used high-enriched fuel >90% in the
>baseball-sized fuel spheres but don't quote me on it -- I can
>get the definitive answer if requested.

I'm not familiar with the German effort but the General Atomic
Pebble-Bed HTGR uses fuel spheres that are about the size of a large
grain of sand.  The sphere is built up of layers of fuel and pyrolytic
graphite.  This scheme is designed to contain the fission products of
the tiny fuel pellets under all conditions.  This has works so well
at Ft St Vrain that the cooling system is only slightly radioactive
even though the coolant flows throughout the core bed.

In my opinion, this is one of the most promising reactor designs around.
It lost in the 70s mainly because GA was not very politically astute.

John

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: John De Armond
Subject: Gas cooled reactors in the US (was Re: Just a couple observations)
Message-ID: <9+bjz1k@dixie.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 17:54:35 GMT

sherwood@adobe.com (Geoffrey Sherwood) writes:

>I also saw this one.  As I recall, they used helium as the coolant.
>The core was composed of ceramic balls (I think I got the shape right)

>How come the US killed it?  Not only is it inherently safe, but from
>what I could tell it seems that you could build small plants on an
>as-needed basis rather than having the enormous outlay (and attendant
>financial risk) of today's reactors.

Pure and simple politics and corporate greed.  Ft St Vrain was developed
by General Atomics.  During at least part of the development, they were
owned by Gulf oil and went by the name Gulf Atomics.  This was the era
when Westinghouse, GE, and B&W were going to put reactors on every
street corner.  They had dozens of essentially open-ended contracts for
reactor construction.  Along comes this upstart GA with a reactor
design that not only would obsolete LWR technology but had proven itself
in the pilot plant (Ft St Vrain).   Of course the big three could not
tolerate this so all possible pressures were brought to bear against
GA.

The government was involved only to the extent that lobbying from the
big three forced it.  Perhaps now that the big three have taken the
tumble, GCRs can be re-examined for their merits.  Not only
are they inherently safe, the heat produced is of much higher quality
and is suitable for use as process heat in a variety of manufacturing areas.
(can you say Synfuel?)

John

From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re: Is car pooling for real?
Message-ID: <c1nm58h@dixie.com>
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:32:06 GMT

yergeau@cornu.phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes:

>>It will be much
>>more cost-effective to refurbish the facility and run it for
>>another 40 or 50 years.

>Hopefully, that could be, but when?  Currently, old plants are
>decommissioned,

But only because they are small and uneconomical to rebuild.  I suspect
that refurbishing costs will be somewhat independent of the size of the
unit.  What does not make sense for an 80 MWe unit makes emminent sense
for a 1200 MWe one.

>and more modern ones, when they reach the end of their
>life, will be considered old and outdated.  For instance, current
>design efforts in the U.S. tend to favor so-called "inherently safe"
>designs.

but this is mostly groping around in the dark looking for the courage
to actually build another plant.  While LWR technology is not the optimum
design, neither necessarily are any of the inherently safe proposals
I've seen to date.  Particularly if pipe-dreams are excluded.

>If these ever become mainstream, the older BWR designs might
>be seen as relatively unsafe and it might not prove cost-effective to
>_transform_  them (as opposed to simply refurbish) into the newer
>designs. Anyway, I'm all for recycling.

The key is "might be seen".  The free world's nuclear power program
has a safety record second to none when evaluated against any other
industrial process, power generation or otherwise.

Little has changed regarding the major structures since the beginning of
nuclear  power.  Concrete is still concrete and piping is still piping.
Major rotating parts such as turbines and large pumps can be updated
in place with new internals, trim, etc.

I very seriously doubt that it will actually come to the point where a
utility says "The plant is obsolete.  Time to shut down and do a refurb."
Upgrades are now being done piece at a time during outages.  Fer'instance
the Sequoyah plant in Chattanooga last year replaces about 10,000 sq ft
of analog reactor protection, reactor control, turbine control and
solid state protection system (solid state == relays here :-) with
about half a dozen racks full of Westinghouse's latest integrated
digital control system.  (Makes me feel old.  That stuff was state of the
art when I started in the biz.) Turbine upgrades are frequent.  A tenth of
a percent heatrate here and a tenth there and pretty soon things look really
good.  Only if some major problem, such as neutron embrittlement or if
some major development, such as superconducting generators, happens
will such a major refurb be done all at once.  Even for something
as serious as neutron embrittlement, in situ solutions are already
being (or are) developed.  Things like in-situ reactor pot anealing.

>Ok then, just refurbish it and go for another 50 years, as proposed
>above for nuclear plants.  Actually, it even makes more sense than for
>nukes because, while one nuclear plant can often be replaced by another
>one built 100 meters away, no such option exists for hydro dams.  And
>if you don't refurbish, at least open the vanes, and turn your dam into
>a mere mound of dirt and concrete, no more dangerous than a cliff in
>the mountains.

Mine was a worst case analysis assuming the eco-terrorism against
hydro continues to accelerate.  I agree with your practical assessemnt of
hydro facilities.

>Why then is it so damn expensive to do it right now?  In current or
>constant dollars, the cost is pretty high, and the problem of disposing
>permanently of the high-level waste is not even solved for good.  The
>latter is, IMHO, the sore point of the whole nuclear industry.

Expense has been addressed in this forum ad infinum.  Consider this.
Browns Ferry Nuclear plant was built at an average cost of $300 million
per unit.  This is a good example because BFNP was one of the last of
GE's turnkey (similar to the current proposal for type-accepted designs)
units, was one of the last before the anti-nuclear hysteria started and
is a large plant by modern standards at about 900 MWe per unit.
Assuming a very pessimistic 8% per year inflation for the last 20 years,
and plugging'n'achugging this through my HP95, that works out to about
$1.4 billion in today's dollars.  This is pretty consistent with the
cost of a gigawatt of new coal generation capacity, I think.  then
factor in the cost savings from modern control technology and construction
techniques, and factor in the trivial fuel cost, and a Nuke looks real
good.  yeah I know Plant Votgle cost 9 billion.  After having subcontracted
to that site, I can say with confidence that the fact that no Ga Power
officials are in jail is an existance proof that the justice system is
sick.  My point is to illustrate that a nuke can be built cost competitive
with other proven forms of generation.

John

From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Dream Design?
Message-ID: <-w=p+da@dixie.com>
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:12:04 GMT

ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:


>I'd like to ask a bit of indulgence here:  What would be your 'dream design'
>for this purpose?  Would it be a LMFB or a HTGR or an 'inherently save LWR'
>or what?

>If the industry were given a mandate to come up with THE reactor design
>(or maybe two, if there were a synergistic set where one bred and the
>other generated, for example) for the next 50 years, what would it be?

>I can't help but believe that it wouldn't be what we have today, but what
>would it be?  Lets forget the past for a few minutes and look into the
>future.  Show me that the future is one I can believe in!

Good question.  I agree that were we to have it to do over again and
have the opportunity to save ourselves from the Rickhover effect,
LWRs would not be the choice.  Here's my dream design.

Medium enrichment, High temperature gas cooled, of course.  Excellent safety
and high enough heat to be used in most industrial processes.  Maybe
continuously refuelable (see below).  Sized to ~200 MWt (80-100 MWe).
Designed to be racked up on a manifold to feed an 800 MWe or so turbine.
That seems to be the optimal turbine and steam system plant in terms of
economy of scale, reliability and so on.  Each reactor controlled by its
own control system so that one scram does not take the generator down.
Medium enrichment gives the reactor good response, high xenon burnthrough
capability and physically small size.  Designed to burn mixed, reprocessed
fuel, of course.

One of two refueling models, depending on the economics involved.  Either
continuous refueling or designing the reactor as a batch unit that can
be unplugged from its manifold mount and carted off intact to the refueling
depot.  Continuous refueling would be more conducive to large complexes
with on-site reprocessing.  Batch would be more conducive to smaller
units and a central reprocessing facility.

A properly designed plug-in reactor could fit in either a power plant or
in an industrial process heat installation.  Built on an assembly line,
and in sufficient quantity to justify automation, they should be very
reliable and inexpensive.  With no liquid cooling involved, the safety
systems become very simple.  The reactor control could be done on something
with no more power than a PC.

John

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: John De Armond
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Message-ID: <p2qrxnc@dixie.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 04:36:39 GMT

dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:


>It seems to be a common conception that nuclear power is a good response
>to any possible climate change problem.  I have challenged this assumption
>before but I will address in more detail here.

>	Capital cost:			$1000/installed kW
>	Generation cost:		$.05/kWh
>	Plant construction period:	6 years
>	Capacity factor:		65%
>	Lifetime:			30 years

>	No costs for decommissioning, waste, health impacts or political
>	problems are included

Without even addressing the splintered logic  involved in the "less is
more", "conservation is generating capacity" line of reasoning, the
above numbers are enough to destroy the credibility of the report.
Let's look at a few of them.

First capital cost: If we postulate a scenario where the US
commits to an  all-out conversion to nuclear energy, it must
also be postulated that things that need to be done to
streamline the process will be done. Things such as generic
type-accepted packaged units, less complex fault-tolerant
reactor  designs, one stop licensing, putting the intervenors
back out on the  street where they belong and so on.  To suggest
that a plant would  cost $1000/iKW is grossly dishonest.  One
can examine the closest thing the US has had to a type-accepted
design was the GE turnkey BTRs of the MkII generation.   Browns
Ferry is an example.  A very good example since the first two units
were about the last built before the nuclear hysteria sent
costs to the stratosphere.  Units I and II were built for a total
cost of about $250 million.  At a MW capacity of about 1000 MWE each,
that puts the cost at about $250/iKW.  Technology advancements can
comfortably be assumed to offset inflation over the period.

Next, plant construction interval.  The japanese have routinely built
conventional LWR plants in 3 years.  A reasonable estimate for a plant
of modest complexity.

Next, availability.  The industry standard of performance for present
day reactors is "outage to outage" availability.  That is, pull the
rods and run til the fuel runs out.  A one month outage every 18 months
gives an availability of 94%.  High burnup fuel addressing the goal of
extending the fueling cycle beyond 18 months is a current industry
goal.  It is reasonable to assume that an optimized reactor designed
for widespread deployment would have the ability to refuel on-line.
The secondary plant would still need an outage every few years for
turbine overhaul and so on.

Beyond that, an optimal design would have multiple fractional capacity
reactors feeding multiple turbines in a matrix.  This would permit
the plant to remain online at reduced capacity if one reactor must be
shut down AND would permit the shutdown of one turbine for maintenance
while the other ran at reduced output.

Using an availability of 65% in an analysis borders on fraud.

Lastly, lifetime. The design life for present day power plants is 40 years.
Few people in the industry believe a plant will be turned off and
decommissioned at the end of 40 years.  Conventional practice will be followed
in most cases in which incremental improvements are made continuously and
periodically major overhauls are done.  TVA (the utility I'm most
familiar with) has fossil units almost 100 years old.  There is nothing
there other than some of the concrete that is actually 100 years old.

Consider again Browns Ferry.  It is approaching 25 years old.  There is
not ever a consideration of shutting down the plant in 5 years.  I was
down for several years for a practically complete overhaul in the late
80s.  It probably has another 20 or 30 years before another overhaul
will be needed.  I think a 50 year lifetime would be a conservative
planning estimate.  A 30 year estimate is silly.

I'll let others take shots at the rest of the "study".  I've seen enough
in just this little chunk to discredit it.

john

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: John De Armond
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Message-ID: <l2srmnc@dixie.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 04:41:10 GMT

dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

>In article <p2qrxnc@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

>> First capital cost: If we postulate a scenario where the US
>> commits to an  all-out conversion to nuclear energy, it must
>> also be postulated that things that need to be done to
>> streamline the process will be done.

>$250/kW seems awfully low -- that's even less than the capital cost of
>simple cycle combustion turbines.

That's because combustion turbines are low capacity compared to their
cost.

>The recent USCEA study of the economics of nuclear vs. oil/gas/coal
>for the next decade used cost figures for ABB Combustion Engineering's
>new reactor design.  Even with its simplification, its "overnight
>capital cost" is around $1300/kW (for a 1200 MWe reactor).  I find it
>hard to believe that USCEA -- a pronuclear group -- would overestimate
>the cost of reactors by a factor of 5.

I quoted myself above again to reiterate my basis which should be
the basis used in the study.  That USCEA is using the old, obsolete
model for nuclear generation to me shows they are about as competent
at that as they are in making nuclear power advertisements. (I've
never seen such horrendously bad ads.)  Sure a plant of 50s vintage design
built under even "streamlined" regulations would cost at least $1300/kw.
I would hope that in the almost 50 years of experience, the industry could
come up with a more cost-effective design.  Since several have already
been proposed in the literature, I'm sure they can.  Of course, if
DOE is allowed to boondogle as usual, who knows.

Of course, this disucssion is academic since no power executive in his
right mind would even consider trying to construct another plant
like what we have now.

Back to the study.  That the author used old, stale values on the nuclear
side while advocating radical social changes on the other shows the
bogosity of the "study".  'Bout what I'd expect from RMI.  If the author
claims the right to postulate on the basis of radical conservation
and soft energy, I have an equal right to demand that nuclear figures
embrace at least the same level of radical change.

John

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: John De Armond
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Message-ID: <w2srx6c@dixie.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 04:50:59 GMT

dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

>In article <p2qrxnc@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>
>>
>>>It seems to be a common conception that nuclear power is a good response
>>>to any possible climate change problem.  I have challenged this assumption
>>>before but I will address in more detail here.

>>>	Capital cost:			$1000/installed kW
>>>	Generation cost:		$.05/kWh
>>>	Plant construction period:	6 years
>>>	Capacity factor:		65%
>>>	Lifetime:			30 years

>>>	No costs for decommissioning, waste, health impacts or political
>>>	problems are included
>>
>>Without even addressing the splintered logic  involved in the "less is
>>more", "conservation is generating capacity" line of reasoning, the
>>above numbers are enough to destroy the credibility of the report.
>>Let's look at a few of them.
>>
>>First capital cost: If we postulate a scenario where the US
>>commits to an  all-out conversion to nuclear energy, it must
>>also be postulated that things that need to be done to
>>streamline the process will be done. Things such as generic
>>type-accepted packaged units, less complex fault-tolerant
>>reactor  designs, one stop licensing, putting the intervenors
>>back out on the  street where they belong and so on.  To suggest
>>that a plant would  cost $1000/iKW is grossly dishonest.  One
>>can examine the closest thing the US has had to a type-accepted
>>design was the GE turnkey BTRs of the MkII generation.   Browns
>>Ferry is an example.  A very good example since the first two units
>>were about the last built before the nuclear hysteria sent
>>costs to the stratosphere.  Units I and II were built for a total
>>cost of about $250 million.  At a MW capacity of about 1000 MWE each,
>>that puts the cost at about $250/iKW.  Technology advancements can
>>comfortably be assumed to offset inflation over the period.

>In 1987 $?

Sure.

>Most of these figures were taken from the literature of organizations
>promoting nuclear power and match the best history from France.  The
>only exception is the 65% figure.  I am not sure what its source is
>but increasing it to %80 or %90 will not change capital costs at all
>nor will it drastically change operational costs.

Perhaps not with your brand of math but in the real world, taking
a plant's availability from 65% to 90% is a marked change.

>There is no
>experience with 50 year old reactors.  I have read that the issue
>of embrittlement is not well understood.  If John De Armond
>thinks these figures are junk he better take his arguments to his
>friends in the nuclear industry.

Aha! Fresh meat.  Love these newbies.  Dean, I don't need to "take it to my
friends in the nuclear industry" because I am part of it.  Or was until I
decided to retire and put ink on dead trees for a living.  Neutron
embrittlement is quite well understood and is being mitigated even as you
read this.  Such things as low enrichment peripheral fuel loading and
a slight reduction in power does wonders.  If or when it becomes necessary
to address reactor pot enbrittlement, it will be done in one of a couple
of ways.  Either the pot will be annealed in place or a new pot will
be installed.  Either way, the facility continues to operate
indefinitely.  The only reactors that will be decommissioned are those
that no longer make economoc sense to operate.

John

The most immediate

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: John De Armond
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Message-ID: <!3trb+-@dixie.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 93 05:08:47 GMT

dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

>> That's because combustion turbines are low capacity compared to their
>> cost.

>Really?  Is that why they are the prefered fossil units for peaking power?
>I would have thought that *low* capital cost for a given power output
>would be prefered there.

Why?  Because they can come up almost instantly and can produce more power
than practical diesel generators and can burn natural gas.  Capital
cost does not matter much when the issue is shaving off a peak demand
that would otherwise necessitate a brownout.

>I'm calling you on this $250/kW figure.  Please give a literature
>reference that justifies it.

Like you did regarding gas turbines?  Unlike you, I don't have to go trolling
in the library to know a bit about the power biz.  If there happens to be
something I don't know about, all I have to do is pick up the phone and
call any of several old colleagues in the business.  Invaluable
resource, dontcha know.  USCEA does play by the old rules which would not
apply in the event the country decided to play nuclear again in a
serious way.

John

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: John De Armond
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Message-ID: <b2wry+#@dixie.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 04:45:54 GMT

yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

>>Ahhh, Yackadamn's back!!!!  Just like a persistent case of the Clap.

>Your postings make it seem like your problem is probably tertiary syph
>instead, but you should get qualified medical treatment in anycase..

C'mon Yack.  You can do better than that.  Oh... Maybe you can't.

>This is typical of your level of either honesty or understanding, I'm not
>sure which. You project costs to be trivial, but on there is zero
>'on the ground' evidence to backup this assertion. Nobody has ever tried
>annealing in any commercial plants, and you the only evidence you
>provide for your claim is your own personal credibility --  a rather
>valueless item.

True, no pot has ever been annealed in-situ.  Nor has a pot been replaced,
nor any containment vessel been replaced, nor any site moved.
Why?  Simple.  Because none of these have ever been necessary.  On the
other hand, things previously declared "impossible" by the armchair
critics have been done with little ado other than fighting the ever-present
anti-nook-kooks.  Things like complete steam generator changeouts (several),
complete recirc piping changeouts (Plant Hatch) and "impossible to fix" steam
generator tube damange (TMI-1).  Like the old saying goes, we nukes do hard
things trivially; the impossible takes a bit longer.

>>As to effectiveness, if you've ever annealed a piece of hardened
>>steel, you know how effective heat is in eliminating stress.  Really
>>does not matter how the stress got there.

>Look up "extrapolation" in a dictionary.

Hmm, trying to figure out how "extrapolation" would be used here.  Perhaps
Yack just knocked a dictionary off the shelf and that's the word that
popped out.  Relative to the thread, the pots are typically inductively
annealed during production.  No extrapolation involved.  The same procedures
will be used, adapted as needed for in-situ work in a rad zone.

I'm trying to attribute some other motive than malicious ignorance to
your continued claim that something the size of a reactor pot
can't be economically annealed in place.  A pot is certainly not the
largest vessel in use.  The metallurgy is nothing special, surely
less complex than that seen in oil refineries.  The only complicating
factor is the radiation environment but that will be dealt with
in exactly the same way we dealt with it at TMI during the SG refurbs -
chemical flushes, shielding, remote manipulators, robots if necessary,
and short stay times.

>Yankee Rowe was shut down by the NRC, not the utility. And it was
>shut down because of embrittlement.

Believe what you want, Yack.  I called my friend and colleague yesterday
(Monday) at to chat about Rowe just to make sure my information is up
to date.  He faxed me some of the press releases from the period.
If you'd like to continue this thread, I'm willing but your guessing
and imagining just isn't going to work.

>The utility decided not to pour
>an unknown but large sum of money into a speculative process.

Well half right.  Knowing what should be intuitave to anyone capable
of giving it any thought, the support costs for doing an annealing will
be approximately the same regardless of the unit size.  The utility
correctly decided that the expense was not worth the results.  No
surprise.  I had hoped that they'd do a demonstration project - perhaps
with DOE assistance but they didn't.

>When it
>comes time, other utilities will make the same judgment with bigger
>reactors -- unless the public gets stuck with the bill.

You mean like customers get "stuck" with the bill for fuel? Or like car
customers get "stuck" for the mfr's research and development costs?

Now, now, Yack.  Dan Rather can get away with that kind of propaganda on
TV; here in this interactive media and with your skillset, you don't
have a chance.

John